Tải bản đầy đủ
3 Gợi mở nghiên cứu.

3 Gợi mở nghiên cứu.

Tải bản đầy đủ

TÀI LIỆU THAM KHẢO
Tài liệu tham khảo Tiếng Anh.
1. Abiad A, Oomes N and Ueda. K., 2004. The quality effect: does financial
liberalization improve the allocation of capital? Working Paper No. WP/04/112,
International Monetary Fund, Washington DC.
2. Ahmeda S.M and Ansarib M.I., 1998. Financial sector development and
economic growth: The South-Asian experience. Journal of Asian Economics
Volume 9, Issue 3, Autumn 1998, Pages 503–517.
3. Akinboade OA., 1998. Financial development and economic growth in
Botswana: a test for causality. Savings and Development 22 (3): 331–347.
4. Anthony Enisan Akinlo and Tajudeen Egbetunde., 2010. Financial development
and economic growth: the experience of 10 sub-saharan african countries
revisited.
5. Arestis P and Demetriades P., 1996. Finance and growth: institutional
considerations and causality. Working Paper No. 5, Department of Economics,
University of East London.
6. Babajide Fowowe., 2010. The financial – growth nexus in Sub-Saharan Africa:
Panel cointegration and causality tests. Journal of International Development.
7. Calderon C and Liu. L., 2002. The direction of causality between financial
development and economic growth. Working Paper No. 184, Central Bank of
Chile.
8. Choi I., 2001. Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and
Finance 20: 249–272.
9. De Gregorio J and Guidotti PE., 1995. Financial development and economic
growth.World Development 23 (3): 433–448.

10. Demetriades PO and Hussein KA., 1996. Does financial development cause
economic growth? Time series evidence from 16 countries. Journal of
Development Economics 51: 387–411.
11. Dimitris K Christopoulos and

Efthymios G Tsionasb., 2004. Financial

development and economic growth: evidence from panel unit root and
cointegration tests. Journal of Development Economics Volume 73, Issue 1,
February 2004, Pages 55–74.
12. Eita JH and Jordaan AC., 2007. A causality analysis between financial
development and economic growth for Botswana. Department of Economics
Working Paper No. 2007-22, University of Pretoria.
13. Favara G., 2003. An empirical reassessment of the relationship between finance
and growth. IMF Working Paper WP/03/123, International Monetary Fund,
Washington DC.
14. Ghirmay T., 2004. Financial development and economic growth in Sub-Saharan
African countries: evidence from time series analysis. African Development
Review16 (3): 415–432.
15. Honohan P., 2004. Financial development, growth and poverty: how close are
the links? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3203, World Bank,
Washington DC.
16. Hurlin C and Venet B., 2001. Granger causality tests in panel data models with
fixed coefficients. Working Paper EURISCO NO 2001-09, Universite Paris
Dauphine.
17. Im KS, Pesaran MH and Shin. Y., 2003. Testing unit roots in heterogeneous
panels. Journal of Econometrics115: 53–74
18. Jung WS., 1986. Financial development and economic growth: international
evidence. Economic Development and Cultural Change 34: 336–346.
19. Keynes JM., 1930. Treatise on Money. Macmillan: London.

20. King RG and Levine R., 1993. Finance and growth: Schumpeter might be right.
Quarterly Journal of Economics108 (3): 717–737.
21. Levin A, Lin CF and Chu CSJ., 2002. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic
and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108: 1–24.
22. Levine R, Loayza N and Beck. T., 2000. Financial intermediation and growth:
causality and causes. Journal of Monetary Economics 46: 31–77.
23. Levine R.,2005. Finance and growth: theory and evidence. In Handbook of
Economic Growth, Vol. 1, Part A, P, Aghion S Durlauf (eds). Elsevier Science:
The Netherlands, pp. 865–934.
24. Luintel KB and Khan. M.,1999. A quantitative reassessment of the financegrowth nexus: evidence from a multivariate VAR. Journal of Development
Economics 60: 381–405.
25. Maddala GS and Wu S., 1999. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel
data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61:
621–652.
26. McKinnon RI., 1973. Money and Capital in Economic Development. The
Brookings Institution: Washington DC.
27. Nicholas Odhiambo., 2005. Financial Development and Economic Growth in
Tanzania: A Dynamic Casualty Test.
28. Odhiambo NM., 2004. Is financial development still a spur to economic
growth? A causal evidence from South Africa. Savings and Development 28 (1):
47–62.
29. Odhiambo NM., 2008. Financial Development in Kenya: a Dynamic Test of the
Finance-led Growth Hypothesis.
30. Patrick HT., 1966. Financial development and economic growth in
underdeveloped countries. Economic Development and Cultural Change 14 (2):
174–189.

31. Schumpeter JA., 1911.The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into
Profits, Capital, Credit,Interest, and the Business Cycle. Harvard University
Press: Cambridge.
32. Sinado A Ndafetwa., 2009. The direction of causal relationship between
financial development and economic growth in Namibia. A thesis submitted in
partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of master of science in
economics of the University of Namibia.
33. Spears A., 1992. The role of financial intermediation in economic growth in
Sub-Saharan Africa. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 13 (3): 361–
380.
34. Tsangyao Chang and Steven B. Caudill., 2005. Financial development and
economic growth: the case of Taiwan. Applied Economics. pages 1329-1335.
35. Wadud M Abdul ., 2009. Financial development and economic growth: a
cointegration and error-correction modeling approach for south Asian
countries.
36. Yousif Khalifa Al-Yousif., 2002. Financial development and economic growth:
Another look at the evidence from developing countries. Review of Financial
Economics Volume 11, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 131–150.

PHỤ LỤC
PHỤ LUC 1: KẾT QUẢ PHÂN RÃ PHƯƠNG SAI.
1. Kết quả phân rã phương sai của trường hợp 1 – biến LNPRIVCRE đại diện cho
biến phát triển tài chính.
Phân rã phương sai của biến LNPCGDP.

Period
1

Variance Decomposition of LNPCGDP:
S.E.
LNPCGDP
0.034373
100

LNPRIVCRE
0

2

0.053933

99.99806

0.001936

3

0.069004

99.98422

0.015781

4

0.081411

99.95186

0.048139

5

0.092086

99.89915

0.100845

6

0.101549

99.82639

0.173607

7

0.110114

99.7346

0.265404

8

0.117982

99.62499

0.375015

9

0.125294

99.49881

0.501188

10

0.132149

99.3573

0.642697

11

0.138621

99.20164

0.798358

12

0.144768

99.03297

0.967035

13

0.150635

98.85236

1.147639

14

0.156258

98.66087

1.339132

15

0.161666

98.45948

1.540524

16

0.166885

98.24912

1.750876

17

0.171935

98.0307

1.969296

18

0.176833

97.80506

2.194941

19

0.181595

97.57299

2.427014

20

0.186233

97.33524

2.664763

21

0.190759

97.09252

2.907482

Cholesky Ordering: LNPCGDP LNPRIVCRE

Phân rã phương sai của biến LNPRIVCRE.
Variance Decomposition of LNPRIVCRE:
Period

S.E.

LNPCGDP

LNPRIVCRE

1

0.130891

0.043592

99.95641

2

0.213564

8.393155

91.60684

3

0.279676

14.27682

85.72318

4

0.332513

17.66041

82.33959

5

0.375631

19.67666

80.32334

6

0.411655

20.96477

79.03523

7

0.442343

21.84429

78.15571

8

0.468877

22.47901

77.52099

9

0.492078

22.95774

77.04226

10

0.512539

23.33163

76.66837

11

0.530704

23.63186

76.36814

12

0.546916

23.87843

76.12157

13

0.561448

24.08469

75.91531

14

0.574519

24.25994

75.74006

15

0.586312

24.41078

75.58922

16

0.596977

24.54208

75.45792

17

0.606644

24.65749

75.34251

18

0.615421

24.7598

75.2402

19

0.623404

24.85118

75.14882

20

0.630673

24.93333

75.06667

21

0.637302

25.00763

74.99237

Cholesky Ordering: LNPCGDP LNPRIVCRE

2. Kết quả phân rã phương sai của trường hợp 2 – biến LNBANKDEP đại diện cho
biến phát triển tài chính.
Phân rã phương sai của biến LNPCGDP.
Variance Decomposition of LNPCGDP:
S.E.
LNPCGDP

Period

LNBANKDEP

1

0.036428

100

0

2

0.056764

99.99247

0.007531

3

0.072586

99.99346

0.006539

4

0.085778

99.99404

0.005957

5

0.097239

99.98117

0.018829

6

0.107468

99.94605

0.053947

7

0.116773

99.88409

0.115913

8

0.125356

99.79342

0.206578

9

0.133363

99.67381

0.326192

10

0.140896

99.52588

0.474117

11

0.148033

99.35076

0.649238

12

0.154837

99.14981

0.850193

13

0.161353

98.92451

1.075495

14

0.167621

98.67639

1.323609

15

0.173672

98.40701

1.592991

16

0.179532

98.11789

1.882112

17

0.185222

97.81053

2.189475

18

0.190761

97.48638

2.513624

19

0.196165

97.14685

2.853152

20

0.201446

96.7933

3.206704

21

0.206617

96.42702

3.572982

Cholesky Ordering: LNPCGDP LNBANKDEP

Phân rã phương sai của biến LNBANKDEP.
Variance Decomposition of LNBANKDEP:
Period

S.E.

LNPCGDP

LNBANKDEP

1

0.099969

3.403476

96.59652

2

0.171815

1.56868

98.43132

3

0.234079

2.589024

97.41098

4

0.287189

3.745634

96.25437

5

0.332471

4.646823

95.35318

6

0.371389

5.310778

94.68922

7

0.405194

5.803496

94.1965

8

0.434868

6.178505

93.82149

9

0.461162

6.472579

93.52742

10

0.484651

6.710075

93.28993

11

0.505776

6.907131

93.09287

12

0.524882

7.074596

92.9254

13

0.542244

7.219903

92.7801

14

0.558082

7.348255

92.65175

15

0.572579

7.463375

92.53663

16

0.585886

7.567979

92.43202

17

0.598128

7.664089

92.33591

18

0.609416

7.753236

92.24676

19

0.619841

7.836597

92.1634

20

0.629484

7.915094

92.08491

21

0.638417

7.989452

92.01055

Cholesky Ordering: LNPCGDP LNBANKDEP

3. Kết quả phân rã phương sai của trường hợp 3 – biến LNLIQLIAB đại diện cho
biến phát triển tài chính.
Phân rã phương sai của biến LNPCGDP.
Variance Decomposition of LNPCGDP:
S.E.
LNPCGDP

Period

LNLIQLIAB

1

0.03593

100

0

2

0.05605

99.66919

0.330805

3

0.0719

99.41363

0.586367

4

0.085231

99.28855

0.71145

5

0.096904

99.24746

0.752536

6

0.107403

99.25277

0.747232

7

0.117028

99.2823

0.717705

8

0.125975

99.32366

0.676344

9

0.134379

99.36988

0.630121

10

0.142338

99.41696

0.583045

11

0.149922

99.46254

0.537465

12

0.157188

99.50523

0.494773

13

0.164178

99.54422

0.455785

14

0.170927

99.57904

0.420958

15

0.177464

99.60948

0.390523

16

0.183811

99.63544

0.364563

17

0.189988

99.65694

0.343062

18

0.196012

99.67406

0.325938

19

0.201897

99.68693

0.313069

20

0.207656

99.6957

0.304302

21

0.213298

99.70053

0.299467

Cholesky Ordering: LNPCGDP LNLIQLIAB

Phân rã phương sai của biến LNLIQLIAB.
Variance Decomposition of LNLIQLIAB:
Period

S.E.

LNPCGDP

LNLIQLIAB

1

0.082992

6.897278

93.10272

2

0.130036

4.217995

95.78201

3

0.166145

3.037342

96.96266

4

0.195276

2.419

97.581

5

0.219592

2.049718

97.95028

6

0.240401

1.806545

98.19346

7

0.258538

1.63419

98.36581

8

0.274563

1.504972

98.49503

9

0.28887

1.403799

98.5962

10

0.301746

1.32185

98.67815

11

0.313407

1.253672

98.74633

12

0.324021

1.195724

98.80428

13

0.333722

1.145614

98.85439

14

0.34262

1.101673

98.89833

15

0.350804

1.062701

98.9373

16

0.358351

1.027814

98.97219

17

0.365325

0.996348

99.00365

18

0.371781

0.967794

99.03221

19

0.377768

0.941759

99.05824

20

0.383326

0.91793

99.08207

21

0.388494

0.89606

99.10394

Cholesky Ordering: LNPCGDP LNLIQLIAB

PHỤ LỤC 2: KẾT QUẢ CHẠY MÔ HÌNH VAR CỦA 3 TRƯỜNG HỢP.
TRƯỜNG HỢP 1.
1.1 Kiểm định nghiệm đơn vị.
1.1.1 Kiểm định nghiệm đơn vị cho biến LNPCGDP.
Panel unit root test: Summary
Series: LNPCGDP
Date: 09/30/14 Time: 09:05
Sample: 1993 2013
Exogenous variables: Individual effects
User specified lags at: 1
Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel
Balanced observations for each test

Method
Statistic
Prob.**
Null: Unit root (assumes common unit root process)
Levin, Lin & Chu t*
2.51

Crosssections

Obs

0.99

9

171

Null: Unit root (assumes individual unit root process)
Im, Pesaran and Shin W-stat
5.45
0.99999998
ADF - Fisher Chi-square
2.42
0.99999483
PP - Fisher Chi-square
4.25
0.99963163

9
9
9

171
171
180

** Probabilities for Fisher tests are computed using an asymptotic Chi
-square distribution. All other tests assume asymptotic normality.
Panel unit root test: Summary
Series: D(LNPCGDP)
Date: 09/30/14 Time: 09:11
Sample: 1993 2013
Exogenous variables: Individual effects
User specified lags at: 1
Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel
Balanced observations for each test

Method
Statistic
Prob.**
Null: Unit root (assumes common unit root process)

Crosssections

Obs